Senate defeats limits on Birth control coverage

[Aegeon]

I don't know how this can even be enforced in real world. Imagine a corporation with many many stock holders (including, say, some billionaire prince from middle eastern country). Who gets to assert on which religious/moral authority? A CEO? Or each regional headquarter? Do they have to vote in a shareholder meeting? Wouldn't that still violate individuals' religious beliefs or moral convictions? What if Walgreens' moral conviction (adopted by shareholders) conflict with that of a pharmacist employee? Whose conviction prevails?

This also emphasizes how the bill was in practice way crazier than it has been commonly described.

For instant, a scientologist could presumably refused to cover psychiatric care under their plan under their individual moral grounds. (Since they basically view psychiatry as evil.)

Furthermore, it would clearly create a huge incentive for business owners to at least claim they are Christian Scientists, which would potentially let them get away with "health insurance" which merely covers "treatment" which is purely Christian Science prayer since full practitioners of the faith typically don't believe in seeking virtually any sort of medical treatment beyond this.

In other words, the amendment as proposed went well beyond contraception.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

<?>

You have a spy?

 

[michal1980]

figures liberals are for seperation of church and state. But only when it benefits their ideals

 

[MovingTarget]

figures liberals are for seperation of church and state. But only when it benefits their ideals

Perhaps you missed it, but the policy no longer requires that religious employers pick up the tab for birth control. The separation of church and state issue has been effectively bypassed. For all intensive purposes, the remaining opposition to the rule seems to be centered around those that believe that birth control should not be widely available - a losing proposition if I ever heard one in 2012.

 

[Jhhnn]

Perhaps you missed it, but the policy no longer requires that religious employers pick up the tab for birth control. The separation of church and state issue has been effectively bypassed. For all intensive purposes, the remaining opposition to the rule seems to be centered around those that believe that birth control should not be widely available - a losing proposition if I ever heard one in 2012.

Well, Catholic Bishops definitely fall into that category, and Repubs are desperate to find something, anything, that they can use as ammunition in an election year. They'll be flinging their own poo come November...

The argument is empty, anyway, considering that monthly member copays are standard for group health insurance. If members pay more than the average cost of contraceptive services, it really can't be said that employers are paying for them at all...

 

[soundforbjt]

I wonder what this will do for Rubio's chance of getting asked to be VP. The bill was called the Blunt-Rubio ammendment. Makes Rubio look bad now as well.

 

[Rainsford]

I can't be bothered to research the specifics of this bill, it may have undesirable parts, but I think the larger issue of the 1st amendment is valid.

I'm not a Catholic nor do I oppose contraceptives, but I don't think the US govt should be easily allowed to force a religious group to violate it's religious beliefs.

Just because the ever-helpful-to-Obama media want to portray this as something other than a 1st amendment doesn't mean that's how the people will see it.

There are about 70 million Catholics in the USA IIRC. I think they see it as a 1st amend issue. Most of the other non-Catholic denominations see it that way too and support the Catholics.

This will NOT be dropping out of the news anytime soon as several states' AG's have joined together to file suit based upon the 1st. I don't see the Catholics or other religions dropping it either.

Aside from the (objective) issue of the 1st, there is a lot of politics to be mined here. I think it too early to see how that may play out. Those in a (faux?) rage over this screaming about "women rights" etc were always firmly in the Obama camp anyway. The Repubs lose nothing there politically. Most important to the election is how the indies see this, and it's too to tell IMO.

Fern

And I believe it's only a first amendment issue to people who wouldn't vote for Obama even if the Republicans nominated Hitler. I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find very many people who's minds have been changed about Obama over this issue.

Why? Because it's at LEAST as much a faux issue on the conservative side as on the "women's rights" side you are so quick to disregard. The idea that the Catholic church has deeply held religious beliefs about the type of medical insurance available to church related institution employees (Catholic or otherwise) is absolutely ridiculous. It appeals to people who were looking for an issue, and I think that's about it.

On the other hand, I think even talking about birth control in any context is a loser of an issue for the Republicans. They've never been exactly "good" on women's issues, and raising this in any context just looks bad for them. I don't think the issue is really about that, but it HAS brought about Republicans saying an awfully large number of ugly things about birth control in general. THAT is going to bite them, IMO, even if the initial issue wasn't a problem. Arguing against Catholic organizations including birth control in insurance plans for employees is one thing, suggesting all women who WANT birth control are sluts who should just keep their legs together (as has been subtly and not so subtly suggested by many, many people at this point) is something else. This issue may not be anti-birth control, but Republicans certainly seem to be.

And the interesting thing is that at least some Republicans seem to think this issue is a problem for them as well. More than a few people have suggested (and not just on this forum) that it's some Lex Luthor plot by Obama to draw Republicans into a losing issue.

 

[Rainsford]

figures liberals are for seperation of church and state. But only when it benefits their ideals

While Republicans have been nothing but supportive of the 1st amendment, from even the barest suggestion of violation (like this issue) to blatant attempts at subverting our religious freedom (school prayer and teaching creationism). The very suggestion that Republicans just discovered their extremely broad interpretation of the amendment when it was politically advantageous is the worst kind of slander.

Sarcasm mode off now, I don't think a comparison of potential 1st amendment violations liberals are willing to tolerate vs those conservatives are willing to tolerate would come out in the conservatives' favor.

 

[Rainsford]

...
2. Just because someone uses them doesn't mean they approve of the US govt forcing religious organization to do things against their religious beliefs. E.g., I think contraceptives are great, but I don't support forcing it on them because I understand it's been part of their religious beliefs for a very long time.
...
Fern

That's the oddest part of this discussion, IMO. Nobody is forcing contraceptives on Catholics. They continue to be free to not believe in their use and to follow that belief by not using them. Paying for contraceptives as part of an employee benefits program is now "forcing it on them"? I'd argue that the only person having belief forced on them in that case is the employee...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I don't think it's hard to draw republicans into a losing issue...

 

[The-Noid]

That's the oddest part of this discussion, IMO. Nobody is forcing contraceptives on Catholics. They continue to be free to not believe in their use and to follow that belief by not using them. Paying for contraceptives as part of an employee benefits program is now "forcing it on them"? I'd argue that the only person having belief forced on them in that case is the employee...

exactly my thoughts...

 

[michal1980]

Perhaps you missed it, but the policy no longer requires that religious employers pick up the tab for birth control. The separation of church and state issue has been effectively bypassed. For all intensive purposes, the remaining opposition to the rule seems to be centered around those that believe that birth control should not be widely available - a losing proposition if I ever heard one in 2012.

LOL.

Really? You really belive that?

The insurance is paid for by the religious employer. Goverment telling the religous employer the insurance company will provide it for 'free', is just a flat out lie.


This is an end around for goverment to tell religous groups what they should belive in.

But the religon hating left has no problems with that.

 

[michal1980]

That's the oddest part of this discussion, IMO. Nobody is forcing contraceptives on Catholics. They continue to be free to not believe in their use and to follow that belief by not using them. Paying for contraceptives as part of an employee benefits program is now "forcing it on them"? I'd argue that the only person having belief forced on them in that case is the employee...

They are just being FORCED to pay for something they dont belive in.


Honestly are you people on the left this stupid?


You get your undies in a bunch over a sign in a school because that somehow establishes religon, but goverment telling religous groups what they should, and should not do is 'ok'.

 

[CPA]

I can't be bothered to research the specifics of this bill, it may have undesirable parts, but I think the larger issue of the 1st amendment is valid.

I'm not a Catholic nor do I oppose contraceptives, but I don't think the US govt should be easily allowed to force a religious group to violate it's religious beliefs.

Just because the ever-helpful-to-Obama media want to portray this as something other than a 1st amendment doesn't mean that's how the people will see it.

There are about 70 million Catholics in the USA IIRC. I think they see it as a 1st amend issue. Most of the other non-Catholic denominations see it that way too and support the Catholics.

This will NOT be dropping out of the news anytime soon as several states' AG's have joined together to file suit based upon the 1st. I don't see the Catholics or other religions dropping it either.

Aside from the (objective) issue of the 1st, there is a lot of politics to be mined here. I think it too early to see how that may play out. Those in a (faux?) rage over this screaming about "women rights" etc were always firmly in the Obama camp anyway. The Repubs lose nothing there politically. Most important to the election is how the indies see this, and it's too to tell IMO.

Fern

I take it even further than a Catholic issue. If I own a business as a sole-proprietor and offer my employees healthcare, I now have no say in what is covered and what is not, therefore having little impact on my overall cost. Once again, government regulating business to the extent that it becomes too difficult to do business.

 

[SNC]

I really enjoy how everyone is focused on the contraceptive issue and ignoring the killing baby issue. You really want the government to tell a church that if they offer health care they have to include paying for killing an unwanted kid? And if you are for it because of the welfare of the woman, where do you stand on the treatment of women who live under sharia law? Should the government be allowed to deny a man from exerting his dominance over the lesser of the species? And how far would you go ensure they were treated equally? I'm really curious where do you draw the line? Most people I know that are pro abortion are left wing wackos who could care less about a woman's rights in Afghanistan, as long as they can do as they please. So can you really say to your self that this in not a political issue?

Another thing I would find interesting : of the people who believe in the "womans right to choose", how many consider themselves "of faith" and are practicing? And of those, who would be willing to tell there pastor priest or what ever, that they are wrong about abortion? Those that say no, why not?

Before you jump, I am about as agnostic as they come. I have no horse in this race except that we keep the separation between church and state separate, else the opposite could occur. I sure as hell don't want that.

...............................

 

[feralkid]

For all intensive purposes,

 

[FerrelGeek]

This. It's a first amendment issue. But yes, this issue provide lots of political fodder. Especially for the left as they see religious bigotry as the olny acceptable bigotry. The .gov shouldn't be involved in this - period.

I can't be bothered to research the specifics of this bill, it may have undesirable parts, but I think the larger issue of the 1st amendment is valid.

I'm not a Catholic nor do I oppose contraceptives, but I don't think the US govt should be easily allowed to force a religious group to violate it's religious beliefs.

Just because the ever-helpful-to-Obama media want to portray this as something other than a 1st amendment doesn't mean that's how the people will see it.

There are about 70 million Catholics in the USA IIRC. I think they see it as a 1st amend issue. Most of the other non-Catholic denominations see it that way too and support the Catholics.

This will NOT be dropping out of the news anytime soon as several states' AG's have joined together to file suit based upon the 1st. I don't see the Catholics or other religions dropping it either.

Aside from the (objective) issue of the 1st, there is a lot of politics to be mined here. I think it too early to see how that may play out. Those in a (faux?) rage over this screaming about "women rights" etc were always firmly in the Obama camp anyway. The Repubs lose nothing there politically. Most important to the election is how the indies see this, and it's too to tell IMO.

Fern

 

[FerrelGeek]

Well said.

I really enjoy how everyone is focused on the contraceptive issue and ignoring the killing baby issue. You really want the government to tell a church that if they offer health care they have to include paying for killing an unwanted kid? And if you are for it because of the welfare of the woman, where do you stand on the treatment of women who live under sharia law? Should the government be allowed to deny a man from exerting his dominance over the lesser of the species? And how far would you go ensure they were treated equally? I'm really curious where do you draw the line? Most people I know that are pro abortion are left wing wackos who could care less about a woman's rights in Afghanistan, as long as they can do as they please. So can you really say to your self that this in not a political issue?

Another thing I would find interesting : of the people who believe in the "womans right to choose", how many consider themselves "of faith" and are practicing? And of those, who would be willing to tell there pastor priest or what ever, that they are wrong about abortion? Those that say no, why not?

Before you jump, I am about as agnostic as they come. I have no horse in this race except that we keep the separation between church and state separate, else the opposite could occur. I sure as hell don't want that.

...............................

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Why? Because it's at LEAST as much a faux issue on the conservative side as on the "women's rights" side you are so quick to disregard. The idea that the Catholic church has deeply held religious beliefs about the type of medical insurance available to church related institution employees (Catholic or otherwise) is absolutely ridiculous. It appeals to people who were looking for an issue, and I think that's about it.

You can't be serious.

I'm not a Catholic, but h3ll even I know they've been strongly anti-contraceptive since forever.

Fern

 

[Fern]

[quot]Originally Posted by Fern
...
2. Just because someone uses them doesn't mean they approve of the US govt forcing religious organization to do things against their religious beliefs. E.g., I think contraceptives are great, but I don't support forcing it on them because I understand it's been part of their religious beliefs for a very long time.
...
Fern

That's the oddest part of this discussion, IMO. Nobody is forcing contraceptives on Catholics. They continue to be free to not believe in their use and to follow that belief by not using them. Paying for contraceptives as part of an employee benefits program is now "forcing it on them"? I'd argue that the only person having belief forced on them in that case is the employee...[/QUOTE]

You cannot be serious. (Yes, I find it necessary to repeat myself.)

We have a federal law banning taxpayer money for abortion. And it is well known that we have this law because of peoples' religious or moral objection to abortion.

By your logic we wouldn't have this law, because funding abortions isn't the same as forcing you to have one.

I.e., it well understood and accepted that forcing someone to fund something that violates their moral or religious beliefs is a valid concern. It is not that we have actually force them to perform the act.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I take it even further than a Catholic issue. If I own a business as a sole-proprietor and offer my employees healthcare, I now have no say in what is covered and what is not, therefore having little impact on my overall cost. Once again, government regulating business to the extent that it becomes too difficult to do business.

True.

And many of us are waiting to see the ramifications of that if the bill passes the SCOTUS.

Fern

 

[Gunslinger08]

Why can't we just move to an insurance plan where the individual pays their own way? Why should the government or you employer decide what you and your family are covered for?

 

[Pens1566]

You can't be serious.

I'm not a Catholic, but h3ll even I know they've been strongly anti-contraceptive since forever.

Fern

Yeah, he's serious.

My entire family is catholic, in laws and extended family all catholic, attended catholic school, tons of catholic friends, etc.. I know of ONE catholic (that is not full time clergy) that is anti-birth control. Fraction of a percent.

It's only an issue at the leadership level and the extremely devout. Which isn't many these days.

 

[Fern]

Yeah, he's serious.

My entire family is catholic, in laws and extended family all catholic, attended catholic school, tons of catholic friends, etc.. I know of ONE catholic (that is not full time clergy) that is anti-birth control. Fraction of a percent.

It's only an issue at the leadership level and the extremely devout. Which isn't many these days.

I could argue the usual "anecdotal thingy" but I won't.

I prefer to address the overall argument of some that the Catholic church's complaint that this law violates it's religion is invalid because many of it's adherents either use, or are unopposed to, contraceptives.

IMO, this is a constitutionally dangerous line of argument. In effect, we are empowering the federal govt to decide which religions are valid, or which of their beliefs are valid. And that is the clearest most glaring violation of the intent of the 1st amendment imaginable.

The line of argument that Catholics themselves use or approve of contraceptives so the complaint is invalid is nothing but the govt deciding which of the church's belief's is valid. Bad, very bad. We are on our way to govt approved religions, or religious beliefs. 180 degrees from the clear intend of the FF and the Constitution.

Fern

 

[MovingTarget]

LOL.

Really? You really belive that?

The insurance is paid for by the religious employer. Goverment telling the religous employer the insurance company will provide it for 'free', is just a flat out lie.


This is an end around for goverment to tell religous groups what they should belive in.

But the religon hating left has no problems with that.

Yes I do, and you should as well. Childbirth is expensive, and the costs associated with complications on top of that can be astronomical. Birth control (either the pill or IUD) is a cheap fixed cost. Thats just for contraceptive use, and as we know birth control pills have other medical uses. So why don't they provide it anyway to employees of Catholic institutions? Aside from states that already have such a provision in their own codes, the CC deliberately puts in exclusionary clauses for birth control and abortion when they negotiate their contract with the insurance company. It effectively denies women working for Catholic-affiliated institutions (or even spouses of those working for Catholic-affiliated institutions) access to affordable birth control. Those states with similar regulations don't pose a problem to Catholic institutions - they follow the law.

Now, let me repeat this. This is not the government telling Catholics what to believe. Ask about any Catholic you meet, and they will likely tell you that. I am Catholic myself - so there you go.

On another note, drop the rhetoric of the "religion-hating left". If anything, my religion (and faith) have had an enormous affect on my political views, which is why I have come to reject the mainstream conservatism that I once embraced. The right does not have a monopoly on the religious in this country, but they do seem to have a monopoly on megaphones in the hands of the religious.